44 comments:

Unlike Pandagon, I have a real question that you have studiously avoided answering:

How does your demand of Sadly, No! comport with your defense of AutoAdmit? How can you demand Sadly, No! stop allowing impersonations of you, but not make that demand of AutoAdmit wrt Brian Leither? How can you demand that Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, and Jill Filopovic get a sense of humor and perspective about internet discussions and then not show that sense of humor and perspective yourself about impersonations?

Impersonation someone is fraudulent. Saying nasty things is nasty and stupid. And since both things happen to me all the time, it doesn't make sense to act as though I'm only concerned with the thing that applies to me.

Both pandagon and reality check demonstrate the major tendency of the Left. They want either two sets of rules, on for themselves and one for others, or they want a single set of rules that other must follow and that they may choose to disregard.

This is the very essence of the tyrant mindset.

And they thus must avoid or displace any discussion that approaches the point.

1st paragraph - And I honestly don't understand how you don't see the difference. It's so plainly obvious to everyone else that it defies explanation - it's as if you repeatedly demand Ann explain the difference betweeen black and white to you and wonder why you're being ignored.

2d paragraph - "Better"? Conceded. But mine both summarized and mocked, in a topical fashion, which makes it funnier. ;)

And let me add that to the extent the impersonation stuff really works as a joke and is not confusable with me, I have the same attitude about it that I have about the nasty talk. I am only staking out this position because of the way I think it is misreadable (especially by people who jump around on the internet). I also am using whatever platform I have to denounce Sadly, No for not responding to my request to end the deceptive practice. I strongly believe that their failure to remedy the problem reveals low ethics on their part and I want people to know that. This is a more speech remedy I'm forced to resort to.

Hmm, my shorter both summarized and mocked too. Just different people.

Subtler and punchier. Leads to funnier.

"troll" and "stalker" are basically just two waypoints on "tactics on how to shut down someone you disagree with." Ann! Ann! RC is winning again! Banninate him!

I don't call you a troll, pw, even though your last contribution was classic trolling: a post that is intended to bait others.

Simon, you of course have no data on who understands Ann's explanation and who does not.

Sadly, No! is a humor site, both in the posts as well as the comments. It's very unlikely anyone there is confused and thinks Ann Althouse wrote those comments, just as Ann knows that it was not Brian Leiter at AutoAdmit. Furthermore, she is asking for behavior that is not supported by the majority of the net, which is, authenticated, unique, usernames and IDs. No one on the internet knows you're a dog.

There are impersonations and nasty and stupid stuff at AutoAdmit.

If impersonations are the worse crime, how come Ann isn't calling on AutoAdmit to stop that.

If the nasty and stupid stuff is worse than the impersonations, and if Ann is calling on the fems to get a sense of humor about the nasty and stupid stuff, how come she is not laughing off the Sadly, No! stuff?

I am not surprised you do not understand this Simon, as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I am not saying you are paid in dollars, just noting the cognitive dissonance as well as your role as Althouse hagiographer at the Wikipee.

reality check said..."Simon, you of course have no data on who understands Ann's explanation and who does not."

I have the fact that the only people who see this dissonance you keep talking about are detractors and dummies. The question is whether you're dumb or affecting dumb as cover.

"I am not surprised you do not understand this Simon, as Upton Sinclair said, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.' I am not saying you are paid in dollars, just noting ... your role as Althouse hagiographer at the Wikipee."

While I realize that you're going to struggle to grasp this concept, no quid pro quo exists, is anticipated, or is desired, either. And I think you need to check your understanding of the term "cognitive dissonance," as it wouldn't apply to the instant situation.

And let me add, since you've gotten me irritated now, those WP edits are made under my username for very good, practical reasons: anonymous edits don't last long on wikipedia and are hard to keep track of to make sure they stay put. And, moreover, I don't like anomynity on the internet - not a concept I'd expect someone who hides hehind a pseudonym to grasp, of course - which is why my wikipedia UN is in my own name (as, indeed, is my blogger account and my website). You're the king of frickin' projection, Reality Check.

I think your original point in this matter is fair and not especially controversial--that its a stretch to think an employer would really refuse to hire someone on the basis of anonymous postings sexualizing that student. And I think young feminist bloggers have jumped on your discussion of it because they've already demonized you on the basis of previous encounters and can't read you objectively.

But here's my problem. You don't seem to acknowledge the other problems at stake in the AutoAdmit situation. First, young women are being harassed online and in person, which whatever effect you think that might have on employers, it clearly has an effect on these women. Second, they are being impersonated, and employers DO search for information online about potential hires, and how is the employer supposed to know whether the posts under this candidate's name are really her or a joke? It seems to me that acknowledging the problem here, even if you don't have an answer, would make this back-and-forth a healthier kind of debate.

I am truly mystified by this entire kerfuffle, especially considering most everyone involved are lawyers or lawyers in training. Sure you all know that once you become a public figure, the rules change and they should change--you can't throw your opinion around about others and then claim immunity. What's all the more mystifying is that your status didn't come about as the result of other's actions, but of a concerted effort on your own part.

The one resounding characteristic of the so-called blogosphere it's its rampant hypocrisy; they claim the right to publically critize everyone else, but not themselves; they publize the most intimate details of their thoughts and lives for everyone to read then get upset when people mock those comments or make some of their own.

Here's a clue--if you don't want to be part of the public discourse, do make yourself part of it. In other words, either put of with it, or shut up. (And all of you really do have the power to shut up, which will put a stop to all the nasty criticism and mocking.)

I'll finish with another cliche; if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

The left wing of the democratic party is run by these Marxist juveniles masquerading as character actors in the internet version of DEADWOOD. The more they speak the more they shed light on the major weakness of the Democratic party.

They really have no life outside the internet because they are cowards, male and female. These dry-gulching, bushwhackers are their own worst enemy.

Somewhere, as we speak, someone is following the money and will expose the purse strings that subsidize these psychotic marionettes. Their attacks on rational people like Althouse and Reynolds will only increase with their desperation as 2008, the day of reckoning, draws near.

The recently cancelled FOXNEWS sponsored debate in Nevada is just an opening salvo in a broad theatre. This show is not for the faint hearted so I suggest we ignore their provocations and use them to our advantage.

1. Looks like Autoadmit is trashed.2. Guys will post anonymous sexist trash about women. It's electronic grafitti.3. The famous and near famous will be impersonated on the web--usually satirically, occasionaly to harm.4. Feminists pose with Bill Clinton at their own risk. Sure he's powerful, a charming rogue, etc. But when one lies down with a dog, etc.5. A sense of humor can help almost any situation.6.It's got to get old looking for sexism 24/7.

What, you can sacrifice pixels but no one else can? Pffft! Talk about elitism...

Back on topic, somewhat - just how much time do you spend looking for posts about yourself? I'm a Z-lister with no real drive or interest for fame and/or fortune, and I just don't understand the mindset of the bloggers (most of whom are right-wingers) who are compelled to follow their own names around the internets, a la Goldstein and Trevino.

You know that there are some 6.2 billion people on the planet, right? Many of whom don't have enough to eat, don't have a job that provides any sort of real life, don't have access to decent medical care or education... you know that right?

Perhaps, and I'm just throwing ideas out here, instead of spending your time scouring the internets for posts that might bear the slightest threat to your 'reputation', such as it is, you could find it in your heart to offer some time actually helping someone - volunteering at a food pantry, helping someone learn to read, working on a Habitat for Humanity house... something that's actually productive.

Frankly, you don't have the guts or 'sense of Self' to be a blogger of any renown - and I say that in a friendly way. Get off the nets and do something with some meaning. Leave the vapid, self-absorbed blogging to the Jr. High kids and the people who put their cats in cute costumes.

That's why to me, Pandagon (and many of the most outrageous feminist sites) have much more in common with right wing ideologues than with progressive, liberal forums.

We here in the reality-based community don't mind challenges, and in fact, we encourage them as it helps us learn what others think of us, and helps us hone our arguments.

But when you look at the Reichtard sites (ht tmink) we see few comments, and lots of bans and deletions. Insty, Red State, LGF, Free Republic, HotAir, Malkin, Protein Wisdom, Patterico, etc. Those guys are all about message discipline and if you allow dissent or even argument, you can't have message discipline.

The more outrageous feminist sites claim that to make the site feel safe for women that they have to protect the women from misogynists or from men just taking over the forum.

That may have been more truthful 30 years ago, and may still have some degree of truth in a physical setting, but it is very hard to understand this degree of requirement for safety when speaking on the internet.

And so, like all echo chambers, including Ann's what happens is stagnation, intellectual dishonesty, group think, bullying, and a veering from course that feedback would correct. But feedback is not allowed.

Pandagon I understand. What I don't understand is how academics like Michael Berube can full throatedly support Pandagon, and why A Tier liberal bloggers are not calling Marcotte out on her bullshit.

Note: I don't think Ann is a Democrat, but I don't believe I've ever said she wasn't a feminist. I think it's clear from her behavior (writing, ads and her blogroll) that she is conservative, and I think the same points to her being a feminist, just one from a different viewpoint as Marcotte and her circle of friends.

Do the A Tier bloggers (mostly young males) really think that Marcotte, feministe, and heavy message controlling feminist bloggers speak for all feminists? If so, they are shamefully ignorant. If not, why aren't they calling Marcotte out on her nonsense?

Note to tmink: you've come a long way since a month or so back when you affected this neutral psychologists bullshit. Glad to see you are an out hater willing to spew out the talking points. Acknowledging and revealing your bias is a good thing. Now you can work on your ignorance and your hatred of Dad.

There ARE plenty of smaller feminist blogs (and other kinds of blogs) that only permit comment from likeminded commenters -- and I think that is perfectly legitimate. Sometimes, you want to have a discussion with likeminded people without having to stop constantly to argue with people from a completely different point of view. If one is constantly having to rehash one's basic premises, it is hard to move the discussion forward. There is nothing wrong or fascist with feminist-only discussion boards, or conservative-only discussion boards for that matter.

I personally prefer the blogs with a more "free for all" commenting policy -- but I think more controlled blogs are a productive use of free speech.

"You know that there are some 6.2 billion people on the planet, right? Many of whom don't have enough to eat, don't have a job that provides any sort of real life, don't have access to decent medical care or education... you know that right?

Perhaps, and I'm just throwing ideas out here, instead of spending your time scouring the internets [ed.: haha because BUSH said internets!] for posts that might bear the slightest threat to your 'reputation', such as it is, you could find it in your heart to offer some time actually helping someone - volunteering at a food pantry, helping someone learn to read, working on a Habitat for Humanity house... something that's actually productive."

You know there are starving people in China, young lady! Eat your broccoli!

Why aren't you doing something "productive", Granny (or ntodd or Thersites or whoever you are), instead of writing anonymous comments on weblogs. Talk about a waste of time...

You know, I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. I really thought that maybe she DID resign, and wasn't really fired.

In the beginning, I defended her and said that her attention-getting (profanity) antics weren't all that different from anybody else's. Everyone's scrambling to get noticed.

But now I see. I had an early post on the Equal Rights Amendment, that they deleted. In all fairness, it could have been the mini-Y2K, but I really don't think so, as subsequent posts on ERA were never responded to...with anything other than profanity.

Can you imagine....? A feminist site, but discussing ERA is off-limits.

And they thus must avoid or displace any discussion that approaches the point.

Worse than that. They must craft an entirely new reality to replace the actual one. Thats why the Valenti/Marcotte crowd is pushing back so hard against Althouse. She challenged their fantasy about Clinton, their revisionist history that allowed them to face themselseves in the mirror. It wasn't just about sex, it was about sexual discrimination. It was about a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace by their Hero. And the feminist movement got down on its hands and knees and swallowed, trading their principles for a veto of a partial-birth abortion ban. Valenti, Marcotte, et al have been trying to whitewash that history ever since, and they hate Althouse for reminding them of the truth.

Its a pattern with them, parroting in an echo chamber to establish and reinforce whatever new reality they are creating. Bush did not lie, but they need to believe he did. Iraq is not a quagmire, but they need to believe it is. Plame was not covert, but they need to believe she was. Althouse did not attack Valenti for having breasts, but they need to believe that too. Otherwise, they have to answer to reality: yes, she reminded me of Monica. What the hell was that blogger thinking? She's a feminist too? You must be joking. Does she have the first clue about Clinton's history? Obviously not. And here come her defenders to tell us "it was just about sex" again.

And as Maxine proved with her ERA post, the more you disrupt their fantasy experiment with fact, the more vitriloc and hateful they become.

Pandagon: it doesn’t even provide any lawyerly thoughts on how to reconcile the freedom we enjoy on the internet with the controls we would need to shut down an obvious problem site like AutoAdmit.

Controls you need to shut down an obvious problem site? Like false complaints to admins that LittleGreenFootballs is a racist hatemongering site? Using the mob to bury anything digged for LGF? How about Powerline? Isn't it "obvious" they are a "problem site"?

Hmmm, I think Pandagon may also be an "obvious problem site". We need controls to shut it down.